Do the Dems have a plan?

[Goobieman]

I don't think the "party leadership" really does. But then, neither does Bush.

Now wait...
Bush doesnt want to leave. If it were up to him. we'd stay forever.

But, the Dems may force us to leave.

Given that the Dems are forcing us to leave, isnt it up to the Dems to have a plan to deal with the consequences of us leaving?

And if they dont have a plan -- arent they just as irresponible for not having a plan as they say Bush is?

 

[Hatuey]

Now wait...
Bush doesnt want to leave. If it were up to him. we'd stay forever.

But, the Democrats may force us to leave.

Given that the Dems are forcing us to leave, isnt it up to the Dems to have a plan to deal with the consequences of us leaving?

And if they dont have a plan -- arent they just as irresponible for not having a plan as they say Bush is?

Why are you blame shifting? I'd really like to know what "the plan" the republicans have would have been if they had been kept in power. Stay the course?

 

[Cremaster77]

I don't think the Democrats have a clear plan, but the counterargument is also true. What is the Republican plan if defeated?

The only "plan" I've heard from Republicans is "We have no option but to win." That's a great rallying cry, but is completely impractical. The same way that we had no plan for an insurgency but instead expected to waltz in and be greeted as heroes has lead to the current situation. Any real leader knows you strive for the best but plan for the worst. So what is the Republican plan?

 

[Hatuey]

I don't think the Democrats have a clear plan, but the counterargument is also true. What is the Republican plan if defeated?

The only "plan" I've heard from Republicans is "We have no option but to win." That's a great rallying cry, but is completely impractical. The same way that we had no plan for an insurgency but instead expected to waltz in and be greeted as heroes has lead to the current situation. Any real leader knows you strive for the best but plan for the worst. So what is the Republican plan?

Stay the course baby - Vietnam in Iraq for the next 5-10 years.

 

[Harshaw]

Why are you blame shifting? I'd really like to know what "the plan" the republicans have would have been if they had been kept in power. Stay the course?

There's no "blame shifting." The Democrats are planning a novel approach, one not endorsed by the Republicans, and it is they who must consider the consequences of implementing it.

 

[Kandahar]

Now wait...
Bush doesnt want to leave. If it were up to him. we'd stay forever.

Staying forever isn't a plan. It doesn't take any planning at all to simply ignore all facts on the ground and refuse to order the troops to leave.

But, the Democrats may force us to leave.

Given that the Dems are forcing us to leave, isnt it up to the Dems to have a plan to deal with the consequences of us leaving?

Sure. Any of the Democrats calling for withdrawal had better have some kind of idea in mind, just like I did.

And if they dont have a plan -- arent they just as irresponible for not having a plan as they say Bush is?

Absolutely.

 

[Goobieman]

Staying forever isn't a plan. It doesn't take any planning at all to simply ignore all facts on the ground and refuse to order the troops to leave.

Point is you can't criticize Bush for not having a plan to deal with a the consequences of an actiuon he was forced to take. If the dems are able to foce us out of Iraq, then the Dems are responbsible for having a plan to deal with the aftermath.

Sure. Any of the Democrats calling for withdrawal had better have some kind of idea in mind, just like I did.

And, in the context of their action sin this regard concerning Bush, what do you think the chances of them holding themselves accountable, or accepting the argument that they should be held accountable, are?

 

[Kandahar]

Point is you can't criticize Bush for not having a plan to deal with a the consequences of an actiuon he was forced to take. If the Democrats are able to foce us out of Iraq, then the Democrats are responbsible for having a plan to deal with the aftermath.


And, in the context of their action sin this regard concerning Bush, what do you think the chances of them holding themselves accountable, or accepting the argument that they should be held accountable, are?

What are you suggesting? That we should just leave the troops there for no reason as long as there is no consensus about what to do afterwards? Withdrawing with no plan is still one step above leaving them there without a plan.

Congressmen are still just congressmen. It's very difficult (if not impossible) to write a foreign policy prescription into federal law. Bush is still the chief diplomat and commander-in-chief. While the Democrats should certainly come up with a plan to help Bush, ultimately he is responsible for finding the best way forward even if we withdraw. The fact that withdrawal is not what he would have personally wanted does not absolve him of this responsibility.

 

[Goobieman]

What are you suggesting? That we should just leave the troops there for no reason as long as there is no consensus about what to do afterwards? Withdrawing with no plan is still one step above leaving them there without a plan.

I'm suggesting that if you dont have a plan for the consequences of your actions, then you are responsible for the mess caused by said action. This argument applies equally to pulling them out without a plan to deal with the aftermath - whatever it may be - as to going into Iraq w/o a plan.

And so, if the Democrats dont have a plan to do deal with the aftermath, then what argument is there that its OK for them to force Bush to pull the troops out? Arent they as guilty of mismanagement and failure to plan as Bush?

Congressmen are still just congressmen. It's very difficult (if not impossible) to write a foreign policy prescription into federal law. Bush is still the chief diplomat and commander-in-chief. While the Democrats should certainly come up with a plan to help Bush, ultimately he is responsible for finding the best way forward even if we withdraw.

I see.
The Dems force Bush into doing somethig that will cause a mess, and Bush is then responsible for cleaning up the mess -- and for failing to plan for the mess itself in the first place.
Amazing.

So, if I get you so far into a hole that you canlt get out, its your fault you can't get out?

The fact that withdrawal is not what he would have personally wanted does not absolve him of this responsibility.

Remember, we're talking problems that arise post-witdraw:
If the Dems force us out, causing the Iraqi government to collapse, allowing Iran to take over, turning it into an extrmeme Shi'ite throcracy -- how is that Bush's fault?

 

[Cremaster77]

Point is you can't criticize Bush for not having a plan to deal with a the consequences of an actiuon he was forced to take. If the Democrats are able to foce us out of Iraq, then the Dems are responbsible for having a plan to deal with the aftermath.

He was forced to invade Iraq? His administration were the ones who were certain that we would doubtfully be there 6 months later, that Iraq would pay for itself through oil within 2 years, and that we would be greeted as heroes. You are completely avoiding the question. What is the Republican plan should the US to form a stable democracy there?

 

[Goobieman]

He was forced to invade Iraq? His administration were the ones who were certain that we would doubtfully be there 6 months later, that Iraq would pay for itself through oil within 2 years, and that we would be greeted as heroes. You are completely avoiding the question. What is the Republican plan should the US to form a stable democracy there?

Remember, we're talking problems that arise post-witdraw:
If the Democrats force us out, causing the Iraqi government to collapse, allowing Iran to take over, turning it into an extrmeme Shi'ite throcracy -- how is that Bush's fault?

 

[hipsterdufus]

Now wait...
Bush doesnt want to leave. If it were up to him. we'd stay forever.

But, the Democrats may force us to leave.

Given that the Democrats are forcing us to leave, isnt it up to the Dems to have a plan to deal with the consequences of us leaving?

And if they dont have a plan -- arent they just as irresponible for not having a plan as they say Bush is?

What's Robert Gates' plan? Isn't that a more important question?

 

[Kandahar]

I'm suggesting that if you dont have a plan for the consequences of your actions, then you are responsible for the mess caused by said action. This argument applies equally to pulling them out without a plan to deal with the aftermath - whatever it may be - as to going into Iraq w/o a plan.

I agree that they should have a plan. But since senators have a minimal ability to actually enact said plan on their own, it's still ultimately the president's responsibility.

And so, if the Democrats dont have a plan to do deal with the aftermath, then what argument is there that its OK for them to force Bush to pull the troops out? Arent they as guilty of mismanagement and failure to plan as Bush?

Yes, they would be as guilty as Bush if they didn't have a plan. That still wouldn't make them wrong about withdrawing the troops though, and it would still be an improvement from being in Iraq without a plan.

I see.
The Democrats force Bush into doing somethig that will cause a mess,

Ahem. The situation is ALREADY a mess if you haven't noticed.

and Bush is then responsible for cleaning up the mess -- and for failing to plan for the mess itself in the first place.
Amazing.

So, if I get you so far into a hole that you canlt get out, its your fault you can't get out?

Any president should be able to anticipate likely events in foreign policy beyond his control...such as the likelihood of an insurgency following a war, or the likelihood of a coup in an allied country, or the likelihood of a democratic revolution in an enemy nation, or the likelihood of Congress and the American people tiring of a badly-managed war before he does.

Any president who DOESN'T factor those things into his decisions is an idiot.

Remember, we're talking problems that arise post-witdraw:
If the Democrats force us out, causing the Iraqi government to collapse, allowing Iran to take over, turning it into an extrmeme Shi'ite throcracy -- how is that Bush's fault?

It's not a question of whose "fault" it is. Bush is the chief diplomat and commander-in-chief, and therefore foreign policy is primarily his responsibility. Congress can and should advise him on how to manage the post-withdrawal situation, but they aren't able to implement changes without his cooperation to the extent that he can implement changes without their cooperation.

 

[WI Crippler]

It's not a question of whose "fault" it is. Bush is the chief diplomat and commander-in-chief, and therefore foreign policy is primarily his responsibility. Congress can and should advise him on how to manage the post-withdrawal situation, but they aren't able to implement changes without his cooperation to the extent that he can implement changes without their cooperation.

So Basically you are saying, it doesn't matter right now if anyone has a plan, because said plan isn't going to go through unless one side caves into the other??

 

[Cremaster77]

Remember, we're talking problems that arise post-witdraw:
If the Democrats force us out, causing the Iraqi government to collapse, allowing Iran to take over, turning it into an extrmeme Shi'ite throcracy -- how is that Bush's fault?

We're talking about the plan in Iraq. Yes, I get it. The plan is to win, but if we don't, which is certainly a possibility, what is the Republican plan? That's the third time I've asked and have not yet gotten a response.

I've admitted that the Democrats don't have a good plan in Iraq. But Republicans have spent the past 2 years complaining all the Democrats do is attack without a plan. Isn't that exactly what this poll is, attacking the Democrats for not having a plan without offering a real plan besides, "we're going to win"?

 

[Goobieman]

We're talking about the plan in Iraq. Yes, I get it.

No. We're talling abuot the plan to deal with the consequences after we LEAVE Iraq, as forced to do so by the Dems.

 

[Goobieman]

Any president who DOESN'T factor those things into his decisions is an idiot.

That's the point.
If congress forces the President to leave Iraq, then its Congress's decision, not the President -- amd as such, its Congress's responsibility to factor those things into their decision.

If Congress made the decision, the Congress needs to have a plan for the consequences. If they dont, then they are guilty of not proprtly planning to win the post-war peace.

Put another way:
If Congress next year passes a budget that produces a $10T deficit, and overrides Bush's veto, is Bush to blame for the $10T deficit, and the consequences thereof?

 

[Kandahar]

That's the point.
If congress forces the President to leave Iraq, then its Congress's decision, not the President -- amd as such, its Congress's responsibility to factor those things into their decision.

You missed my point. Bush should have been planning all along (and still should be planning) for the fact that this country would not tolerate a long war, and worked from that premise in determining his Iraq policy. It's not like this opposition just came out of nowhere and blindsided him.

If Congress made the decision, the Congress needs to have a plan for the consequences. If they dont, then they are guilty of not proprtly planning to win the post-war peace.

They should have a plan, but their ability to implement it is very limited without Bush's cooperation. You can't easily write foreign policy into the law...and it generally wouldn't be a good idea to do so even if you could.

Put another way:
If Congress next year passes a budget that produces a $10T deficit, and overrides Bush's veto, is Bush to blame for the $10T deficit, and the consequences thereof?

Those are two very different situations.

A) Congress has a great deal of control over the federal budget. It has very little control over foreign policy.

B) A sudden $10T deficit would be a huge surprise, whereas any competent president should have anticipated from the start that the American people (and Congress) wouldn't stand for a long war.

And once more, since you don't seem to have caught it the first two times I said it: It doesn't matter who is at FAULT or who is to BLAME; the president is RESPONSIBLE for foreign policy.

 

[hipsterdufus]

No. We're talling abuot the plan to deal with the consequences after we LEAVE Iraq, as forced to do so by the Democrats.

Wow, I didn't know the Dems had so much power, we can just wave our magic wand and - POOF! we're outta there. :roll:

No, it's the people that don't support the war. They voted LOUD AND CLEAR on Nov. 7th.

 

[Goobieman]

Wow, I didn't know the Democrats had so much power, we can just wave our magic wand and - POOF! we're outta there. :roll:

If you dont understand how Congress can force the President to remove the troops from Iraq, then you dont understand enough about how the government works to have a reasonable converation regarding same.

 

[hipsterdufus]

If you dont understand how Congress can force the President to remove the troops from Iraq, then you dont understand enough about how the government works to have a reasonable converation regarding same.

Don't patronize me goober, of course I understand that!

The point is that the vast majority of the public in the United States want the war in Iraq to end. The sooner the better.

 

[Harshaw]

Don't patronize me goober, of course I understand that!

The point is that the vast majority of the public in the United States want the war in Iraq to end. The sooner the better.

You base this on what?

There are two ways of "ending" the war -- victory or defeat.

You show that the "vast majority of Americans" want us to lose. Because I have no doubt whatsoever that they would prefer ending the war by victory rather than by abandoning it.

So, I guess my question is -- what side are you on? Victory or defeat?

 

[Cremaster77]

You base this on what?

There are two ways of "ending" the war -- victory or defeat.

You show that the "vast majority of Americans" want us to lose. Because I have no doubt whatsoever that they would prefer ending the war by victory rather than by abandoning it.

So, I guess my question is -- what side are you on? Victory or defeat?

So are you "guaranteeing" a victory if we continue to stay the course? This is the very approach of only planning for the best case scenario that has landed us where we are today. For the FOURTH time, although it's obvious that victory is better than defeat, what is the Republican plan if we are defeated?

 

[Harshaw]

So are you "guaranteeing" a victory if we continue to stay the course?

No. But leaving before the job is done -- the way things are now -- IS defeat. We can only win if we stay.

For the FOURTH time, although it's obvious that victory is better than defeat, what is the Republican plan if we are defeated?

Don't know. They may or may not, but at least they're not trying to lose. The Democrats are. They're making the conscious choice to do it, to give up. So it's an appropos question -- have they planned for the obvious consequences of defeat? If not, then they're every bit as bad as critics say the Republicans are.

Look, AQ is very heavily invested in Iraq right now. That's where they are. As long as we're there, they can't do much more than piecemeal hit-and-runs, and they certainly can't take over like they pretty much did in Afghanistan. They also can't do much of anything else anywhere else, because most of their resources are there. If we leave, Iraq will likely be split between them and Iran, who will then have all of Iraq and its resources to train, build up, and wage a very real war against us on our home turf, especially emboldened by having driven us out.

Those will be the most obvious consequences defeat (and who knows what all the less obvious and unintended consequences will be?). So what do the Dems plan to do about it?

 

[Cremaster77]

Don't know. They may or may not, but at least they're not trying to lose. The Democrats are. They're making the conscious choice to do it, to give up. So it's an appropos question -- have they planned for the obvious consequences of defeat? If not, then they're every bit as bad as critics say the Republicans are.

You might not know. But I do. The answer is the Republicans have no plan for defeat. The real question is, is Iraq winnable? At least in the sense that the Republicans have laid out. A unified, democratic Iraq that can combat extremism on its own. I personally am beginning to have my doubts about that. If you are convinced that this vision of Iraq is a pipedream, then it is reasonable to stop sacrificing your troops to an unwinnable situation. It's like a gambler throwing in more and more money trying to win back that first dollar they lost. At some point, the gambler needs to stop playing or go bankrupt.

I for one want us to win in Iraq. I fully understand the consequences of not doing so. But I am certain that the current Republican strategy of stay the course will not succeed. If Republicans are serious about winning, they need to give back tax cuts to pay for the war. They need to drastically increase troop levels, possibly implementing a draft. They need to be willing to make the sacrifices needed to actually try to win the war rather than just questioning whether people want to win or not. Thus far, the Republicans have shown only that they are willing to maintain a failing policy and continue to refuse to plan for the possibility of defeat.